1. At least 2 pp., not more than 3. One page should be your SSP framework
outline and another page a narrative. Keep your evolving SSP outline in
front of you as you write your final paper.

2. Keep "SSP Impact Methodology" journal file from Period 17 in mind.

3. Keep the Final Paper Assignment directions below in mind.

4. Identify the goods and the type of situational interdependence it
creates.

5. From theory, give examples of the institutional alternatives that
direct the type of interdependence you have identified and the relevant
performance variables.

6. Give an example of a testable hypothesis linking S, S & P using
the format in PPPC, eg. italicized hypothesis in Ch. 6). What empirical
study from our reading seems most relevant to support the hypothesis?

7. What behavioral regularities are most relevant in predicting performance.

Final Paper Assignment .

1. Pick a real public (group) choice situation where you have experience.
It can be foreign or domestic; governmental or private group (e.g., church,
club, dormitory association). You may embellish the real case with additional
situational factual assumptions as you wish to permit yourself the opportunity
to demonstrate your understanding of various sources of interdependence
and other course concepts. You are not expected to spend a lot of time
researching details of your case.

2. It could involve a change in the rules (like a court case or new
legislation) or it may involve existing rules in which case, try to contrast
the existing outcome with what you would expect under an alternative rule.
Try to discover the rules that shape the choice you observe.

3. Make the paradigm (model) you are using explicit. State the linkages
of the components (variables) of your paradigm as a series of testable
hypotheses. Consider the handout entitled "SSP Impact Methodology Applied"
and Shaffer's "Institutions, Behavior and Performance" from Period 2. Attach
to your paper a one page SSP outline of the components (variables) found
in your case following the format used in class and the attached excerpt
from Samuels and Schmid, eds., Law and Economics, p. 78 (reserve,
Main Library). The headings on your matrix need not be the same as the
SSP example if you find some other construct more useful (explain). Use
a horizontal outline format explicitly linking the case environment, particular
situation (or combinations thereof) to alternative institutional structures
and performance. Number the institutional alternatives (structures) and
use the same number for the associated performance. Indicate the name of
the physical good that goes with each situation and any characteristics
of the environment and human behavior that you think are relevant. People,
goods, and institutions matter.

4. Apply concepts from any of the readings to help you formulate predictive
hypotheses as to the kind and direction of consequences you would expect
from alternative rules. Consider public and private alternatives and variations
within each. Use empirical material from PPPC Part IV and other readings
where relevant. At least 2 pp. of your paper should describe case experience
and methodology from our readings or other experience that support your
hypotheses and how they could be tested. Use the PPPC subject index to
look for relevant concepts and applications.

5. Remember our focus is institutional analysis (if this is not clear,
see Schmid, "Analytical Institutional Economics," Amer. J. of Agr. Econ,
Dec., 1972). We are asking how the rules affect whose preferences count
and get reflected in performance (and even the evolution of preferences).
We are not analyzing the physics of these choices (e.g., not the effect
of a 55 mph speed on traffic accidents).--Though some rough idea of the
production function may be presumed when identifying how the rules affect
the interests of different groups which may be expressed in terms of final
impact. When I say, predict the consequences of alternative rules, I don't
mean the effect of 55 mph speed on death vs. a 75 mph speed. I mean, for
example, the effects on behavior (speed actually driven) of alternative
levels for speed limit administration (state, local, by a consolidated
agency); is the opportunity to drive a private right protected by the courts;
can it be traded; who bears the costs of accidents; what shapes the incentives
of the policy and the judges, etc.? Don't choose cases that are primarily
simple shifts in factor ownership or degree of competition.

6. You will need to note some of the interest groups who have a stake
in these rules and try to predict how the alternative rules affect which
groups count. In other words, if one of these (or all) groups hires you
to inform it of which set of rules will further its interests, you should
be able to help them. Then when they argue among themselves as to which
rules should prevail, they can do it intelligently.

7. The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate what you have learned
from the course. Everyone is not expected to have learned exactly the same
thing. Therefore, the assignment gives you the responsibility of formulating
the question to be addressed in the context of the course material.

8. Do not address normative issues of PPPC Chapter 11.

9. Prepare a cover page for your paper which includes a 70-80 word abstract.
At the end, attach a full bibliography of any works cited using the style
of a major journal in your field.

10. Remember that this is your final exam. Final exams usually don't
cover all topics in a course, but constitute a reasonable sample. You are
responsible for that sample which allows you to practice and show off you
skills in applying a few major concepts.

a. Select a case where the situation includes two
or three sources of interdependence. Since the effects of IUG
are relatively straightforward and well understood, it should be a minor
part of your paper. Remember that we have spent a lot of time showing that
there is more to rights than factor ownership. The main focus should be
on an inherent situation, but you may also include an institution (rule)
as the good and examine the performance of alternative rules for making
rules

b. Explore and contrast the performance of at
least two alternative rules (structures) for each situational feature
of your case.

d. Use other empirical studies to warrant (support)
your predicted performance. If you can't find an empirical case in our
readings that parallels your case, perhaps you don't understand the theory
or you need to argue that the theory is lacking.

e. Consider both impact and institutional change
analysis though you do not need to give equal weight to each. Be explicit
when you are doing one or the other.

f. Make your cognitive and behavioral model explicit.

11. Since the dominant style of writing in our profession is the journal
article, write your paper as if it were to be submitted to a journal such
as the Journal of Economic Issues, Journal of Socio-Economics,
Public Choice and the Journal of Economic Psychology.

12. Maximum text length, 12 pp. double spaced, one inch margins all
around, (page number may be outside the margin) 12 point font, exclusive
of abstract, bibliography and one page SSP outline which shows the skeleton
of your paradigm and hypotheses (the outline may be in smaller type). Leave
the SSP outline loose so I can easily refer to it as I read your text.
Grammar and spelling are not graded, but care in communication can't hurt.
Above all, strive to make your paper interesting. Apply the following test--Hey,
do I see and understand something in the economy I didn't before I started?

Check List:

a. Cover page and abstract.

b. Text.

Did you include: Name of the physical good; Predictive
hypotheses; Identification of stakeholders; Empirical evidence to support
your hypotheses; Both impact and change analysis; An explicit model of
cognition and behavior?

c. Bibliography. (not part of page limit)

d. SSP Outline (not bound or stapled to text). (SSP is a way to find
the common elements in the variables suggested by all of the authors you
have read even if the terms they use are different.)